Right Test, Wrong Ruler

This week, during a conversation with a prospective client — a law firm — we heard a story that really stood out. They had started using logic tests in their hiring process.

The idea was clear: measure reasoning and problem-solving ability. One candidate practically aced the test, and the team got very excited about him.

But — perhaps unsurprisingly — he didn't make it through his probationary period.

The reason? He was extremely weak at legal writing. Every brief and motion he produced had to be revised without exception.

In short, he was excellent at what barely mattered, and weak at what was essential.

Every role has its own ruler

This kind of situation is more common than it appears. Many companies stack tests and assessments because "that's what you're supposed to do" or because someone recommended it.

But they forget to look at what actually matters day-to-day in the role.

According to McKinsey, 87% of companies have faced skills gaps in recent years. In many cases, the problem isn't a lack of assessments — it's assessments that measure the wrong competencies.

In the law firm's case, measuring logic was pointless when what set someone apart was clear writing, sharp argumentation, and effective communication.

The mistake is using the wrong ruler.

In a previous edition, we talked about distilling the right profile for each position — which includes a deep understanding of the actual tasks involved and, as a consequence, the relevant aptitudes.

Far more than focusing on "which school" or "which certification," understanding and evaluating the specific skills required for a role is a far more effective way to recruit.